Phenomenology for Introductory Architectural Analysis ...

AbstractAs a consequence of fruitful discussions about joiningtheory and practice both in design research andeducational design programmes, this article aims toexplore phenomenological parameters in the framework ofan exercise for Engineer-architecture students from theUniversity of Leuven in Belgium. Relying upon thearguments of recognised architects regarding theimportance of the phenomenological approach in the fieldof architecture, it is intended to propose a five-stepmethod (pentagon) to add to architectural analyticalexercises. The paper argues that an explicitphenomenological awareness within architectural designeducation should be addressed in addition to the potentialreferences to architectural phenomenology in theoreticalcourses or in the discourse of architectural design teachersduring the studio courses. This article begins this processthrough the discussion of one example: ‘IntegratedSeminar on Housing’ which is taught in the first semesterof the bachelor programme. A qualitative review of theoutcomes of the exercise stresses a positive effect in thedevelopment of students’ skills that are not an explicitfocus of methodologies related to programmatic ortechnical skills. The conclusions encourage thedevelopment of the experimental study to improve thecomplementarity of the phenomenological approach withthe more technical methodologies. In the final reflectionsabout the results of the pentagon methodologicalapproach some evidence is provided in respect to thearticle’s claims.

Key wordsphenomenological approach, architecture students’exercise, dwellings interpretation, atmospheric quality

IntroductionThis article stems from the interest of architects in the useof phenomenology for design practice regarding perceptivefeatures and atmospheric qualities of buildings.Philosophically, this text is framed within Merleau-Ponty’swritings on the primordial experience, the perceptiveevidence as fundament that bonds body and world,presenting the arguments for an integral humanexperience. This philosopher seeks an order of reality thatdoes not presuppose duality: logic/perception,consciousness/body, body/world. Such order of reality, in

Phénoménologie de la Perception (1945) is namedl’entre-deux (the in-between). The individual is enmeshedin the physical world, developing in relation to it: existenceis neither a thing, nor pure consciousness. However, otherphilosophers inspire this article, namely Gaston Bachelard,Martin Heidegger, and Gernot Böhme. There are alsocontributions from architects and architecture theoreticianswho consider phenomenology an inspiration for their ownpractice and in general to clarify thoughts on architecturequality. Concerning anthological publications about theoryof architecture, the attention dedicated to phenomenologyand architecture is scarce and has a very narrow focusedthematically. For example in the volume Theorizing a NewAgenda for Architecture. An Anthology of ArchitecturalTheory 1965-1995 edited by Kate Nesbitt (1996), of 14chapters, only one, chapter 9, is dedicated to the specifictopic of meaning and place, with two essays by Norberg-Schulz and one by Pallasmaa. In The SAGE Handbook ofArchitectural Theory (Crysler et al., 2012), its 8 sectionsand more than 700 pages include only one articleconcerning architecture and phenomenology. It is thearticle ‘Architectural Phenomenology and the Rise ofPostmodern’, by Jorge Otero-Pailos, in the section‘Aesthetics/Pleasure/Excess’. The author largely discussesthe history of the term ‘architectural phenomenology’ andits influence in architectural theory, design process andscholarly research. In the anthology Architecture andPhenomenology (O’Byrne and Healy, 2008) the mainargument is that the discussion around this issue ‘will allowa re-appraisal of the relation of architecture and philosophy[in the particular case of phenomenology], and a turningpoint towards a more fundamental questioning of building,dwelling, thinking and architecture’ (O’Byrne and Healy,2008:5). In effect, Juhani Pallasmaa accounts that therelation of architecture and atmosphere is increasinglygrowing as an area of academic interest, and particularly inthe Nordic countries. Pallasmaa witnesses that in thesymposium ‘Researching Atmospheres’ at the University inArhus in Denmark in April 2013 ‘there were 24 doctoralworks in the Nordic countries presented, all touching uponthis theme of atmosphere.’ (Havik and Tielens, 2013:35).As well the #91 issue of OASE published in December2013 was dedicated to Building Atmosphere. Theincreasing interest about the relation between architectureand atmosphere reinforces the importance of a discussionabout the claims of an architectural phenomenology, i.e. anarchitecture concerned with the quality and character ofthe built space. In the conclusive part of this article some

58

RESEARCH

Design and Technology Education: An International Journal 20.2

Phenomenology for Introductory Architectural Analysis Courses:The pentagon methodological approach

Fátima Pombo, University of Leuven, Belgium

Wouter Bervoets, University of Leuven, Belgium

Henk De Smet, University of Leuven, Belgium

reflections stress the contribution of a phenomenologicalframework to the design of a better architecture to mediatebetween people and dwelling.

The premise and focus of this article is, however, theimportance of bringing an explicit phenomenologicalawareness articulated with the programmatic and technicalmethodologies into architectural education. This plea foradditional attention to architectural phenomenology is notevident given that the education system in many Europeancountries is confronted with budget cuts, increasingnumbers of students, declining numbers of educators andconsequential cuts in time and resources for personalguidance of students. It is to observe that nowadays theprofession of architect requires a more extensive attentionthan before to the legal, financial and management aspectsof the construction industry that therefore these are alsointegrated in the architectural programs. Because of thesetrends, additional attention to less tangible aspects ofarchitecture such as generating a ‘phenomenologicalawareness’ is not obvious in an already overloadedcurriculum. Moreover, architectural phenomenology isoften considered by the architectural staff members to bealready present in architectural education, usually in animplicit manner and spread over some courses. Forexample, in architectural theory classes phenomenology ismentioned within the broad spectrum of theoreticalapproaches to analyze architecture. Architecturalphenomenology might also be implicitly present in thearchitectural design exercises if architectural designteachers – predominantly practicing architects – payattention in their guidance to architectural atmospheresand the human experience of buildings. However, it is theaim of this text to point out that a clearer and more activephenomenological approach can contribute to a moreevident awareness by students about recognising anddesigning architectural quality. Therefore it has animportant place within architectural education in designstudio classes.

To make a start on how to bring architecturalphenomenology more explicitly into architectural designeducation, this article will discuss one experimentalexample from the field: the ‘Integrated Seminar onHousing’ organised in the first bachelor for students ofEngineer-architecture at the University of Leuven inBelgium. As ‘integrated’ suggests, the seminar combinestechnical, programmatic and phenomenologicalapproaches for the analysis of residential architecture. Thisarticle will however focus on the phenomenological part ofthe exercise which is supported by two entangledcomponents: a descriptive and a reflexive component.Both components work together and feed the students’

approach to the house they have to interpret and discuss.The descriptive component builds on thephenomenological concept of combining perceptiveelements (air flow, colour, texture, rhythm, light) withdesign elements (plans, sections, site, slopes, thresholds)and programmatic elements (typology, structure, form).The current exercise proposes the application ofphenomenological parameters through a five-step methodto understand their driving force in the design process. Thereflexive component, based upon architectural examplesboth from theory and from projects, intends to explore theviewpoint of buildings as a potential for experiences andmeaning to be ascribed by an embodied mind whilecreating a certain relation with space. The reflexivecomponent makes use of the perceptive, design andprogrammatic elements cast in the descriptive moment toexplore the meaning of experiencing a building. It is toargue that such experience underlies pragmatic andfunctional qualities, even if clearly integrating them whilecreating architectonic quality and displaying a certainatmosphere. The first section of the article will outline theoverall design and practical organisation of the integratedseminar on housing. Subsequently the five-step method toincrease the phenomenological awareness will bediscussed. The article concludes with a critical reflectionabout the pentagon methodological approach stressing apositive effect on the development of students’ awarenesstowards a key designed space, specifically a house.

Integrated Seminar on HousingOverviewProbably since mankind first erected buildings, it has beencommon for builders to analyse existing buildings asexamples or starting points for new designs. And equallylikely, since the establishment of architectural education,architecture students have analysed exemplary buildings aspart of their training. At the University of Leuven the annual“Integrated Seminar on Housing” focuses on the analysisof residential architecture in Belgium. The seminar isorganized in the very first semester of the Bachelorprogramme in Architecture, and is complementary to otherintroductory courses such as ‘Architectural Theory, Part 1’, inwhich houses are regarded as a key issue in architecture;and ‘Construction of Buildings, Part 1’, focusing ontraditional engineering. Both courses support the seminarconveying to the students the necessary knowledge aboutengineering and architecture theory.

The seminar starts from a selection – yearly updated byscreening architecture publications and websites, and byrecommendations from practicing architects – of 40 builtexamples of contemporary residential architecture inBelgium. In small groups of 3 or 4, students have to

Phenomenology for Introductory Architectural Analysis Courses: The pentagon methodological approach

59

RESEARCH


analyse one of the 40 dwellings. A visit and experience inreal life of the building are fundamental elements of theassignment. The selected dwellings vary from the first builtprojects of promising new architecture offices to recentworks by established architects. Dwelling typologies varyfrom apartments and lofts to terraced, semi-detached anddetached houses in urban, suburban and rural settings;and from renovation to new construction projects.Architecture styles and concepts are also widely diverse,but all selected dwellings excel the architectural quality of‘a dime a dozen’ commercial housing projects deliberatelyexcluded from this list. At the end of the semester, theseminar results are presented through 15 minuteslideshows, followed by debate about the architecturalquality of the analysed dwellings among students, theirpeers in the auditorium and the jury members.

ObjectivesThe overall objective of the seminar is to teach first yearstudents, generally with no prior knowledge aboutarchitecture, to look in an ‘architectural way’ at dwellingsand the built environment. In addition, they areencouraged to question their own dwelling preferences,prejudices and experiences. Through sober but visuallyattractive presentations, students have to develop an in-depth understanding of their case study dwelling, and offera personal opinion on architectural quality. Thepresentation is expected to allow a discourse integratingthe architectural drawing conventions and architecturalconstraints such as location and program, with the concept,spatial organization of the dwelling, and the subjectiveexperience gathered during the house visit. Byacknowledging design decisions regarding the visiteddwellings, students are expected to build a well-basedcriticism about the dwelling’s architecture theyencountered.

MethodologyThe starting point of the seminar is the collection ofbuilding plans and all other existing material on thedwelling available from the architect, the internet or thelibrary. This material also helps students to prepare thehome visit. The actual visit to the dwelling takes aroundone hour, a rather short time to take good quality pictures,canvas subjective experiences, and critically analyse thedwelling. Therefore, students are asked to carefully studythe collected material prior to their visit, in order to identifythe elements that demand special attention and to preparequestions to the homeowner.

The primary methodological tool consists of producingaccurate graphic material, to be presented in a structured,easy to follow presentation. Firstly, students have to

(re)produce precise building plans of the dwelling –implantation, floor levels and sections – with CAD software.All architectural drawing conventions have to be followed,but the level of detail is limited to that of ‘publicationplans’. In case of a house renovation or expansion, throughthe contrasting colouring of the demolished and the addedelements, the original and actual situation are analysed andvisualised. Secondly, to analyse and visualize the internalcirculation and spatial organization of the dwelling, studentshave to colour the plans according to the different roomsuse and purpose. Thirdly, combining their photographicmaterial with small inset plans, students create an easy tofollow visual tour through the house and include it in theirfinal presentation. The combination of these threesubsections helps students to understand the planorganization and the housing system functioning. Theirpresentation in a descriptive manner allows the audiencean overall and neutral introduction to the house.

For the final analysis, students have to develop anarchitectural critique of their case study dwelling. Therefore,students are introduced to the pentagon methodologicalapproach to the exercise as it is explained further in detailin the next section. To assist in the production of therequested graphic material and its merging into a coherentpresentation, students are offered specific courses onarchitectural drawing conventions, 2D and 3D CADdrawing, architectural photography and presentation skillsas part of the seminar. Additionally, two interimconsultation meetings are organized, with the teachingteam offering suggestions to adjust and supplement thedraft version of the final presentations.

The pentagon methodological approachThe educational programme of Engineering-architecture inthe department of Architecture at the University of Leuvenis closer to a tradition of the schools that educate futurepractioners stressing more technical studies than artisticones. The book Bronnengids Architectuur OnderwijsVlaanderen (2012) [Sources for Architectural Educationin Flanders] is an important source that documents thatstatement. However, as a consequence of fruitfuldiscussions about joining theory and practice both indesign research and educational design programmesinspired by congresses, by published works and by thechallenges of the profession in the 21st century conditionswere created for the experimental case study reviewed inthis article. The book Architecture School. Three Centuriesof Educating Architects in North America (Ockman, 2012)contributes to the understanding of ‘the turn of theeducation’ – which is the title given to the introduction –facing up to the transformations of our time and thepressures put on the architect’s training namely regarding


60

RESEARCH


the ‘studio culture’ (Ockman, 2012:10-33). Joan Ockmanstates that:

‘…what most distinguishes architecture education fromother types of professional and graduate training is itssyncretic nature. Geared to producing skilled practionersand founded on concepts and discursive formations thathave evolved since the time of Vitruvius, it combinestechnics and aesthetics, sciences and humanities.Schools are called on to impart highly disparate types ofknowledge. Negotiating the architect’s multiple identitiesas craftsman, technician, and creative artist; professionaland intellectual; public servant and businessman’(Ockman, 2012:10).

In the chapter ‘1990-2012 The future that is now’ StanAllen reviews the concept of the syncretic nature of theprofession and the role of the architect in society in verycontemporary contexts as the new technologies,globalisation and the tensions between the global and thelocal, networking, activism and others. In respect to thedesign culture the author stresses:

‘Students today look at the same books and journals,work with the same software, and listen to the samearchitects who travel the international lecture circuit.What is required to comprehend globalism today is nottired generalization, but close study of specific places,cities, and cultures’. (Allen cited in Ockman, 2012:229).

The book Educating Architects. How tomorrow‘spractioners will learn today edited by Neil Spiller and NicClear (November 2014) focusses on pedagogicalphilosophies and practical examples for the architecturaleducation in the twenty-first century. The fascinatingreading of the essays confronts the reader with a widerange of methods which have the goal of contributing tothe preparation of future architects for some of thechallenges they will face in their profession.

Within the above mentioned framework of studies,discussions, debates and goals, the current review of theapplication of a pentagon methodological approach in anarchitectural studio is a very modest contribution. Themethod is based on five steps which arose from theauthors’ attempt to organise insights aboutphenomenology and architecture in such a way as toinspire and offer new qualitative perspectives to thestudents while dealing with their exercise. The five phasesrepresent five moments beyond the technical tasks thestudents were asked to perform. The students had to recallexperiences and information from sources not immediatelyconnected with architecture, but with impact on the

interaction with the designed space, namely a house. Theintegration of a phenomenological approach in the firstyear of the studies programme had a purpose. The freshuniversity students were enmeshed with insights aboutarchitecture that point to architectural details, to theaesthetical appropriation and the sensorial features of aparticular space. The students were speaking andexperiencing architecture with a language that cannot bemeasured or achieved through objective or quantitativecalculations. In the second semester the same studentshave to design a family house in a design studioassignment. The five step methodology aims to contributethrough the experience of the course ‘Integrated Seminaron Housing’ to the quality of this exercise. The followingfive phases intend to clarify the ‘plot’ of each phase andhow it is presented to the students.

Phase 1: awakening phaseIn this early moment it is important to present the studentsspecific terminology concerning phenomenology andarchitecture. They are introduced to the linguistic mind theyare expected to master during their exercise, expressingclear points of view about architecture, namely that eachbuilding provides atmospheric qualities and interacts withthe individual in a total way as body, mind, and spirit. It isalso stated that the building’s sensory properties contributeto creating the atmospheric quality of an architectonicspace. To illustrate the meaning of that statement somewritings and practical examples from well-known architectsand theorists are discussed in class. Most of the studentswill hear the term ‘phenomenology’ for the first time duringthis assignment, and the purpose of the exercise is not toteach phenomenology as a philosophical movement ordiscuss controversies of architectural phenomenology inthe history of architecture. The exercise is intended tointroduce the students to concepts like atmospheric qualityand the impact of this quality on the individuals thatexperience the architectonic space. ‘A building with a soulprobably has a lot of dimensions’, asserts Zumthor. (Spier2001:17). Accordingly, the architect names theatmospheric qualities of a building as soulful qualities,which are ‘deeper or long lasting, and somehow also moreopen to life’ (Spier 2001:22). Phenomenology empowersus to bring closer architectural matters and the experienceof day-to-day existence.

An architect that drew attention to the experience of spaceas an embodied phenomenon and introduced the conceptof atmosphere was Peter Zumthor. In his bookAtmospheres: Architectural Environments, SurroundingObjects (2006) he writes that it is the particularatmosphere of a building that moves the individual andthat is closely related with its architectural quality. But he


61

RESEARCH


also asks: ‘what do we mean when we speak ofarchitectural quality?’ (2006:11) and confesses that: ‘It is aquestion I have little difficulty in answering. (…) Qualityarchitecture to me is when a building manages to moveme.’ (2006:11)

In the work The Eyes of the Skin (2005) Pallasmaadenounces the supremacy of the sense of sight inarchitecture, making vision the paradigm for architecture.Pallasmaa invokes all senses in order to understandarchitecture and defends an architecture that unfolds theauthenticity of human emancipation.

“The ultimate meaning of any building is beyondarchitecture; it directs our consciousness back to theworld and towards our own sense of self and being.Significant architecture makes us experience ourselves ascomplete embodied and spiritual beings. In fact, this isthe great function of all meaningful art” (Pallasmaa,2005:11).

The metaphor of the senses replaces the metaphor ofvision that has been predominant in the history ofarchitecture. The Finnish architect proceeds in theassumption of a global interaction between individual andarchitectural space:

“An architectural work is not experienced as a series ofisolated retinal pictures, but in its fully integrated material,embodied and spiritual essence. It offers pleasurableshapes and surfaces moulded for the touch of the eyeand other senses, but it also incorporates and integratesphysical and mental structures, giving our existentialexperience a strengthened coherence and significance”’.(Pallasmaa, 2005:12)

Defending the architecture of “the multitude of sensoryexperiences” (2005:70) relying upon a complexity ofimpressions, an intertwining of senses and an encounter ofemotions, therefore against ‘the hegemony of theperspectival eye’ (2005:35) Pallasmaa recalls “thekinaesthetic and textural architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright,the muscular and tactile buildings of Alvar Aalto, and LouisKahn’s architecture of geometry and gravitas” (2005:35).

In this awakening phase, some practical examples are alsooffered. It is not an issue if the architect of the tracedexamples claims to be ‘architect-phenomenologist’ or not.The goal is to introduce the students to an architecture thatfaces the built space as a balanced design betweenpragmatism, local culture and the individual’s identification.The above mentioned exercise is a golden opportunity todiscuss such balance, since it focuses on the dwelling i.e. a

place where the appropriation of an existing space meansfar more than practical, functional issues. At this phase,phenomenology contributes the concept of reflection uponthe meaning of places, their atmospheres and sensorialappropriation.

Phase 2: Self questioning on dwelling At this stage students are asked to face the subject ofdwelling on their own. Erudition or knowledge about theoryof architecture must be put aside and students have toanalyse dwelling critically as phenomenon, by (1) evokingtheir experience about dwelling (2) referring theirunderstanding about the fundaments of ‘dwelling inharmony’ whether alone or shared and (3) imagining anddescribing the house where they would like to live.

Therefore, students are encouraged to look back, namelyinto their childhood, and to evoke memories, feelings,perceptions, imagery about homes they inhabited, such astheir family home, friends’ homes or grandparents’ homes,bringing to light the features and the character of suchdwellings. Students are also expected to classify therelations between them and the rooms’ atmospheres, suchas affability, hospitality, monumentality, cosiness, privacy,intimacy, silence, noise, warmth, coldness or comfort,connecting these to elements intrinsic to construction:materials, size, texture, temperature, proportion, light orshadow. Students may also link perceptions such as scentor touch, beyond the evidence of visual or acoustic reality.The search for the resonance of those experiences isexpected to allow the students to elaborate on the housethey would wish to live in.

In a final moment, a collective discussion is stimulatedbased on four examples stemming from the experience ofthe individual in their inhabited space: the room that allowsprotection, privacy and freedom (Virginia Woolf); the houseas domestic interior that welcomes the flow of life (MarioPraz); the house as primordial guardian of childhoodmemories and imagery (Gaston Bachelard), and the houseas intimate place to think and to experience the essence ofdwelling (Martin Heidegger).

Virginia Woolf in A Room of One's Own (1929) states thatfor a woman to write she needs her own space, her ownroom and her own money: ‘a woman must have moneyand a room of her own if she is to write fiction’. (Woolf,1991:2). A room. The first notion associated to a room isone’s privacy. Privacy is also related with protection. In aroom occupied by an individual, there’s the sensation ofbeing inside, of being defended from potential dangers,and of being free. Besides the feminist perspective ofWoolf’s essay, the students are asked to focus on her


62

RESEARCH


statement of such needs. Students are encouraged toelaborate on the importance of having a space (a room) oftheir own.

Mario Praz in The House of Life (La Casa della Vita, 1958)leads the reader along a guided tour in his apartment inRome, room by room, which is a tour through hisautobiography, memories, feelings, love for collecting artand sensibility to domestic details. This text portrays tostudents a domestic interior set as scenery in which eachpiece of furniture, decorative object, carpet, mirror or workof art has a meaning to the author. Students are asked ifthey would like to have a place where they could shelter‘their life’ and to justify their opinion.

Gaston Bachelard in his book The Poetics of Space (LaPoétique de l'Espace, 1958) expresses his livedexperience of architecture, specifically the experience ofthe home of childhood, and its different spaces, the attic,the basement, the rooms, and the different types offurniture. Cherishing the primordial imagary of theprotective home brings back sensibility, intimacy, identity.For the French philosopher, the house is the most intimateof all spaces, where each space shelters a particularmemory or experience. Understanding the house istherefore to understand the human being and its ability toimagine and dream. The house of childhood is theprimordial setting, the first subjective universe, the sceneryof the innocent consciousness and therefore remains inthe archives of memory. But it is not always possible topreserve the childhood home, for personal, economic orpolitical reasons. Students are asked to recall if they have aplace like the one described by Bachelard and to elaborateon its importance/meaning.

A final example is the ‘house’ as a place to think. This isthe case of the house Heidegger inhabited as often as hecould for five decades, since it was built in 1922. AdamScharr describes that house in his book ‘Heidegger’s hut’(Scharr, 2006) giving account of Heidegger’s bond withthe hut and the surrounding environment. Themes such asdwelling, sense of place, landscape, thinking, body andfeelings were philosophically discussed in texts wrote byHeidegger in that house. The hut was built to be anoccasional refuge from the busy daily life in the city and inthe academy. However, it became the intimate space forHeidegger, where he stayed for long periods to think andto write, many times alone. In Building Dwelling Thinking(Bauen Wohnen Denken, 1951) Heidegger addressesdwelling and building not ‘as an art or as a technique of

construction; rather [tracing] building back into that domainto which everything that is belongs. We ask: 1. What is it todwell? 2. How does building belong to dwelling?’(Heidegger, 1971:143). For the philosopher, the quality ofdwelling questions the quality of building. Building shouldallow and sustain the need of human beings (Da-sein) todwell with quality, since dwelling is essential for the humanbeing. Dwelling is bringing together earth, sky, people andspirituality (the divine). The mention of Building DwellingThinking as well as Poetically man dwells (Dichterischwohnt der Mensch, 1951) is intended to introduce thestudents to the relevance of Heidegger’s thinking andphilosophy as inspiration for architects. Students are askedwhat might be their reasons to live in a hut.

Students’ reflexions triggered by these four examplescontribute to discussion of dwelling as a phenomenon thatoccurs in time that is rooted in a locality, an environment, alandscape, stressing the multiple meanings of feeling ornot feeling at home. Hence designing, building anddwelling become accomplices at this point. Students haveindeed different memories about their dwellings and candescribe them through feelings and sensations linked withsmells, colours, sizes, textures, materials.

Phase 3: Defining parametersPhenomenological awareness is sensitive to the globalcharacter of a space and afterwards to its details. JuhaniPallasmaa accounts the insights of the seminar Architectureand Neuroscience organised in Helsinki in June 20131 asrevealing:

‘that our perception and understanding does not processfrom details towards entity but the other way around:from entity to details. This is an essential aspect ofatmosphere: it is an immediate experience of the whole,the entity, and only later can one distinguish the detailsthat are part of it.’ (Havik and Tielens, 2013:37).

The intertwining of detail and whole entity unfolds in theprocess of architectural design. Each architectonic element(parameter) works together to create a space in whichmateriality and form invites the individual to perceive it,react to it, to relate to it through an embodied way (seeing,feeling, smelling, hearing, touching) and charging it withmeaning. A list of parameters is presented to students aslight, shadow, color, material, texture, rhythm, structure,proportion, size, volume, shape, inside, outside, in-between, landscape. Besides functional and technicalrequirements, students are faced with the architectural


63

RESEARCH


1 Architecture and Neuroscience, seminar organised by the Aalto University, the Alvar Aalto Academy, Tapio Wirkkala.Rut Bryk Foundation andthe Finnish center for Architcture, 3 June 2013, Helsinki.

quality of the project they are intended to interpret.Therefore, in this phase the parameters each student isinterested in emphasizing in his/her exercise are clarified inorder to describe the perceptive quality of the building,character of the place, or in other words, its atmosphere.

At that point it is clearer that the design process dependson the interplay of rational and objective criteria withintentions and feelings about the space the architect wantsto design. Steven Holl, researching the experiences ofperception concerning architectonic decisions in the scopeof ‘phenomenology of architecture’ (Holl, Pallasmaa, Pérez-Gómez, 2008) recollects from Maurice Merleau-Ponty theconcept of ‘in-between’ reality (l’entre-deux), the “groundon which it is universally possible to bring things together”(Holl, Pallasmaa, Pérez-Gómez, 2008:45). Holl envisionsan experience in which the architectonic elements (space,light, detail, material, volume, shape, proportion…) mergewith the architectonic whole in a comprehensiveperception.

At that point it is clearer that the design process dependson the interplay of rational and objective criteria withintentions and feelings about the space the architect wantsto design. Steven Holl, researching the experiences ofperception concerning architectonic decisions in the scopeof ‘phenomenology of architecture’ (Holl, Pallasmaa, Pérez-Gómez, 2008) recollects from Maurice Merleau-Ponty theconcept of ‘in-between’ reality (l’entre-deux), the “groundon which it is universally possible to bring things together”(Holl, Pallasmaa, Pérez-Gómez, 2008:45). Holl envisionsan experience in which the architectonic elements (space,light, detail, material, volume, shape, proportion…) mergewith the architectonic whole in a comprehensiveperception.

At this moment it is important to discuss with the studentsthe concept of atmosphere and its relation with spatialdesign. Atmosphere refers to the sensorial qualities a spacesends out. Then, by creating a certain atmosphere, thearchitectural space invites people to experience and usethat space. For debating the concept of atmosphere inarchitecture we use three sources, namely (1)philosophical phenomenology, (2) the reflexion of GernotBöhme about the concept of architectural atmosphere and(3) writings from architects about parameters thatcontribute to create the atmospheric quality of space.

The philosophical phenomenology is mainly based onMerleau-Ponty, Heidegger and Bachelard, philosophersalready introduced to the students in phase 1 and 2. Thephilosopher Gernot Böhme in the chapter ‘Synästhesien’(Synesthesia) unfolds a phenomenological-aesthetical

discourse about nature (landscape) and art in which theconcept of atmosphere is described as the global ambianceof a space that first impresses the individual senses. In thechapter entitled ‘Atmosphere as the subject matter ofArchitecture’, Böhme makes a distinction between the‘physicality of the things and their existence in the space’(2005:402) because the spatiality of the things can only beexperienced by individuals being in the space, ‘throughphysical presence’ (2005:402). There is no representationof space (photographs, films, literature) that can replace theindividual experience of it. But how to project atmospheres,a specific atmosphere? According to Böhme, the architecthas conscience of the importance of the atmosphericquality of spaces to people. In the chapter ‘Die produktionvon Atmosphären in der Architektur’ (The production ofatmospheres in Architecture) the philosopher advocatesthat the architect through ‘the sensitive parameters that hechooses, colours, surfaces, line framing and thearrangements and constellations that he creates are at thesame time the physiognomy from where arises anatmosphere’ (Böhme, 1997:97). Böhme’s thinking aboutatmosphere and space is a relevant legacy for architecture,both for the design process and for the perceptive featuresa building displays. For architecture, the objective propertiesof a space are not a purpose per se, but towards theambiance and character that emanates from them.

The third source is based on texts from architectsmentioning parameters supporting or dismissing a legacyfrom phenomenology. This is intended to make studentsaware of the enhancement of atmospheres in spacesthrough design. One of the parameters is the expressivevalue of light for the architect Louis Kahn. In the bookBeginnings. Louis I. Kahn’s Philosophy of Architecture,Alexandra Tyng, his daughter, states that:

‘His reaction against the International Style’s dry,analytical approach to architecture prompted him to saythat feeling was a more important process than thinkingin the design of buildings. (…) By feeling, Kahn meantthe instinctual, intangible side of his mental processes.(…) Although Kahn considered feeling the source of allideas, he had also learned the value of thinking rationally,of putting his ideas into cohesive order. Thinking was toKahn an academic process useful for the disciplining ofhis creative drive. What Kahn called thinking is the abilityto stand back from an idea and evaluate it objectively.’(Tyng, 1984:27).

For Kahn, both feeling and thinking were important for thedesign creative process and have equal importance in theexploration of the possibilities of transforming ideas intoforms. In his own words:


64

RESEARCH


‘But some people always separate feeling from thinkingand build their solution around thinking only. That is whythe creative mind cannot accept the separationcategorically of the nature of space-order-design, andrightfully so because feeling embodies all at onceintuitively’ (Kahn in Tyng, 1984:64).

The inseparable bond that Kahn saw between feeling andthinking in the creating’s process shelters his thoughtsabout light as the fundamental element to materialize aspace. For Kahn natural light is the light that matters inarchitecture. For Kahn natural light’s nuances design theatmosphere of a space while interplaying with thearchitectonic structural elements. Kahn integrates in histheory about light and architecture a poetic discoursedescribing a metaphorical approach of light with music (theatmosphere of a room is like a musical compositionformed by ‘notes of light’ (Tyng, 1984:130) and silence, aconcept that the architect articulates with spirituality,inspiration and ontological need. Kahn while mastering thepower of light both as an architect and as a philosopher ispraising also the power of shadow as a natural part of lightthat belongs to darkness and silence.

Students are also introduced to In praise of shadows fromthe Japanese author Junichiro Tanizaki; a further form ofmoulding the space through shadows. In the traditionalJapanese aesthetics, the subtlety of shadows is an ally ofbeauty, and a key element to unveil the meaning of theopacity of materials, the walls’ natural colours, the object’sreflexion, the silence and the shade in interior spaces.

Having discussed the ideas of both Kahn and Tanizakiabout the relevance of light and shadow in the shaping ofspace, specific projects are mentioned, like the Church ofLight by Tadao Ando, the Myyrmäki Church by JuhaLeiviskä, the Crematorium by Axel Schultes and CharlotteFink, or the Therme Vals by Peter Zumthor among others.

Phase 4: Interpreting themesAfter combining parameters such as light/shadow/material,texture/structure/rhythm, colour/texture/light the studentsorganize the themes they want to explore depending on(or motivated by) the previously combined parameters andthe particular characteristics of their case study dwelling.Possible themes are for example: the relationship betweenthe spatial organisation and the privacy in the dwelling, theimpact of an open plan on the indoor atmosphere,eventual conflicts between the materiality and spatiality ofthe dwelling, introverted or extroverted characteristics ofthe dwelling or particular rooms, openness (in a corner, themiddle of a wall, in the ceiling) and perception of sunlight,etc. Subsequently, they will describe the atmosphere they

felt inside the dwelling. Finally, the inter-subjectivity of theexperiences will be discussed to contribute to theenrichment of the concept of atmosphere, namely asindividual or interpersonal resonance.

At this interpretative phase, students identify the effects ofthe chosen parameters on the quality and character of thespace they analysed in both a subjective andintersubjective context. It is foreseen that students maydebate about the meaning of significant architecture. Is itthat ‘the ultimate meaning of any building is beyondarchitecture, [that] it directs our consciousness back to theworld and towards our own sense of self and being’ asPallasmaa points out? (Pallasmaa 2005:11). Is it that “Thechallenge for architecture is to stimulate both inner andouter perception; to heighten phenomenal experiencewhile simultaneously expressing meaning; and to developthis duality in response to the particularities of site andcircumstance’ as Steven Holl states? (Holl, Pallasmaa,Pérez-Gomez, 2008:42). Is it that ‘quality in architecture tome is when a building moves me?’ (Zumthor 2006a:11).

The focus of this phase is concentrated on the experienceof the dwelling’s atmosphere as a multisensory experience.Students become aware of the relevance of carefullychoosing parameters in the design process and finalarchitectural project quality.

Phase 5: Discussing resultsIn the final phase, students have to present the results oftheir analysis to their fellow students and jury members. Tovisualize their analysis, students use graphic materialproduced with different representation techniques: CADplans and sections, 3D modelling and photography. For thephenomenological part of the seminar, the photographsmade by the students during the home visits are the mainvisual expression tool. Because of the rather limited visualrepresentation skills of the first year students, photographsare the easiest and most direct way to represent theatmosphere of the visited dwelling. Figures 1-5 are a fewexamples of pictures that show how students combineddifferent parameters, organised themes and grasped theatmospheric qualities of the houses they visited. Duringtheir final presentations, students have to explain anddiscuss their responses to (1) the relevance ofphenomenological parameters they chose and combined,(2) the interpretation of themes and (3) in which way thehouse they visited ventilated (or not) atmospheric qualitiesof the architectonic space.

Each presentation is followed by a short debate about thearchitectural and atmospheric qualities of the analyseddwellings among the students, their peers in the


65

RESEARCH


auditorium and thejury members. Theopinions that comeforward in thesedebates make clear tothe students that theperception ofarchitecture and itscommunication asksfor their self-capacityof grasping a specificspace besides atechnical language.

The presentation ofthe examples below isa very tiny sample ofthe type of visualmaterial that wasachieved by thestudents. The

discursive side of the presentation is not possible toreproduce in this text.

Figure 1. depicts the combination of parameters‘light/colour/ material/structure’ to support the theme ‘therhythm of the roof and the shadows on the floor in theliving room’.

Figure 2. depicts the combination of parameters‘light/volume/size’ to support the theme ‘structuralorganization and ambiguity of the space’.

Figure 3. depicts the combination of parameters‘light/shadow/texture/inside’ to support the theme‘perception of the space and experience of privacy’.

Figure 4. depicts the combination of parameters‘new/old/landscape/natural light’ to support the theme‘relation between inside and outside while occupying aplace in the sofa’.

Figure 5. depicts the combination of parameters‘material/structure/texture’ to support the theme‘introverted or extroverted character of the room’.


66

RESEARCH


Figure 1. House on Pig Streetby Arch. Marie-José Van Hee

Figure 2. House Fiatlux in Schaerbeek by LabelArchitecture

Figure 3. House G-S inGhent by Graux &Baeyens Architecten

Figure 4. Vicarage in Houthave-Zuienkerke by VierinArchitecten

Figure 5. House den Anker by 360 Architecten

Naturally not all the presentations had the same quality ordegree of complexity though the selected examples are asmall sample that illustrates the sensitivity of the studentsto identifying an architectonic quality and a sensorialexperience with the space that surpasses the purelytechnical or formal responses.

At the end of students’ presentations and discussions, thequestion that arises, parallel to the questions ‘What do Ihave to design?’, ‘Which quality do I want to design?’ is:‘How do I design it?’. How to design in order to create theatmospheric quality the architect is looking for in his/herproject? There is no magic recipe to assure the design of abuilding with a specific atmosphere. Besides all that can betaught and learned exists a zone that is not prescriptive, avery singular and personal zone created by the experiencesof the individual’s life that stimulate his/her talent andimagination during the design process of ‘kicking outthings, eliminating other things, developing the building asa form, as a mass, as a body.’ (Spier, 2001;21). Thispersonal zone can be bonded with the so-calledinspirational sources that are a personal phenomenon andthat can be more or less accurately identified by eacharchitect.

Speaking about the designing of a dwelling, statesPallasmaa:

‘you have to become the dweller. My professor AuliusBlomstedt used to say that an important area of talent foran architect is the capacity to imagine human situations.(…) Even formal issues should be a consequent of beingable to imagine human life, human emotion, and humansituations. I believe that atmospheric qualities arise fromthe designer’s empathetic sensitivity and skill.’ (Havik andTielens, 2013:43).

In the essay ‘Identity, Intimacy and Domicile. Notes on thePhenomenology of Home’ (Pallasmaa in Mackeith, 2005),Pallasmaa chews over what makes a house a home,concluding that architecture should attend to the subtle,emotional and diffuse aspects of home. But he states: ‘Inour schools of architecture, we are taught to designhouses, not homes’ (Pallasmaa in Mackeith, 2005:113).His thoughts about the experience of home and thechildhood home in particular show his inspiration inBachelard’s writings about memories, nostalgia,unconscious desires, fears and joy. Recalling thephilosophy of architecture of Louis Kahn, we find this samethought of bonding architecture with the core of humanbeing: his/her aspirations, truths and sorrows. Kahn lookedfor forms and materials and structures that could expressthis core in architecture.

The results of the exercise support the authors’ claim thatthere is a need for future architects to explore and developthe skills that a phenomenological approach may improve.And the first need is to keep human beings in the core ofthe architecture.

Reflections about the pentagon methodologicalapproachThe phenomenological part of the ‘Integrated Seminar onHousing’ aims to generate more explicit phenomenologicalawareness among the students. The initial reaction of thestudents to this five-step methodological approach is oneof strangeness. Being first year students they are notfamiliar with the very specific phenomenological discourse.In effect, students engage themselves through the five-steps methodology with different backgrounds, motivationand comprehension. The differentiated results achieved bythe groups regarding the phenomenological approach,allowed us to identify that the five phases demandextensive tutoring of students in smaller groups. Althoughthis article argues that it is very important for students inEngineering-architecture to get acquaintance of thephenomenological approach at the very beginning of theirstudies, the five-step methodological approach conflictswith the time pressure in the actual educational system.Especially in the first semester, due to the large number ofstudents and focus on basic courses in the curriculum,time to nourish self-reflection and group discussion israther limited. Nevertheless, in the framework of the ‘Integrated Seminar on Housing’, through the ‘compact’ 5-step approach students become quickly aware ofknowledge that is anchored in a perceptive level andhence that architectonic decisions in that arena influencethe projects’ character. The phenomenological viewpoint ofbuildings (exterior and interior spaces) contributes towidening the exploration of the meaning of ‘architectonicquality’. It is difficult to estimate, let alone to measure, theeffect of the integrated seminar on the personaldevelopment of the students and on their laterprofessional design practice. Based on the experiences ofthe past years, we however dare to claim that the seminarhas a positive effect on the personal development of thestudents. This positive effect can for example clearly benoticed during the design exercise for a single family housein the second semester. Besides the general knowledgegained on residential architecture and presentation skills,the increased sensitivity to the atmospheric qualities ofbuildings also contributes to the students’ designcapabilities and improved outcomes. The seminar not onlyoffers the students an overview of 40 different houses withdifferent dwelling atmospheres for inspiration and self-questioning on dwelling (phase 1 and phase 2), theanalytical work also gives them insight into how


67

RESEARCH


architectural elements contribute to promote the quality ofa space to dwell (phase 3 and phase 4). The presentationand debate about the exercise accomplished (phase 5)adds some arguments to think further about the syncreticnature of the architectural education.

A final thought about the proposed exercise is that it allowsa specific attitude towards architectural design, in tune withPallasmaa’s thinking: ‘I try to teach how to be an architect:how to look at the world, perhaps, or how to think, andhow to work with curiosity and humility’ (Pallasmaa inMackeith, 2005:7). Architectural phenomenology conveyspersonal gestures towards the built environment, stressingan interaction that relies upon an experience of theenvironment that is supposed and designed to besubjective. This exercise aims to involve the students in anessential subject for architecture: the notion of place as asupporting ground for experiences arising from thecorrelative existential condition of dwelling and inhabitingthe world, and the role of the built environment in thequality of human life.

ReferencesBachelard, G. (1994). The Poetics of Space (La Poétiquede l’Espace, 1958), London: Beacon Press.

Böhme, G. (2005) Atmosphere as the subject matter ofArchitecture. In Philip Ursprung (Ed.), Herzog and DeMeuron. Natural History, Zürich: Lars Müller Publishers.

Böhme, G. (1997) Atmosphäre. Essays zur neuen Ästhetik.2. Auflage, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.

Crysler, C. G., Cairns, S., and H. Heynen (Eds.) (2012). TheSAGE Handbook of Architectural Theory, London: SAGEPublications.

De Caigny, S. et al. (Eds.) (2012). BronnengidsArchitectuuronderwijs Vlaanderen.Antwerpen:, Antwerpen:Centrum Vlaamse Architectuurarchieven and VlaamsArchitectuurinstituut.

Havik, K., Teerds, H. and Tielens, G. (Eds.) (2013). BuildingAtmosphere. OASE 91, 128.

Heidegger, M (1971) Poetry, Language, Thought(Unterwegs zur Sprache, 1959), New York: HarperColophon Books.

Holl, S., Pallasmaa, J., & Pérez-Gómez, A. (2008).Questions of Perception. Phenomenology of Architecture,S. Francisco: William Stout Publishers.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945, 1987). Phénoménologie de laPerception, Paris: Gallimard.

Nesbitt, K. (Ed.) (1996). Theorizing a new agenda forArchitecture. An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.

O’Byrne, B. and Healy P. (Eds) (2008). Architecture andPhenomenology, Footprint-Delft School of Design Journal,special issue, Autumn.

Ockman, J. (Ed) (2012). Architecture School. ThreeCenturies of Educating Architects in North America,Massachusetts: MIT.

Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The Eyes of the Skin. Architectureand the Senses, New York: John Wiley.

Pallasmaa, J. (2005) Encounters 1. Architectural Essays. InPeter Mackeith (Ed.). Helsinki: Rakennustieto

Pallasmaa, J. (2014) Space, Place, and Atmosphere:Peripheral Perception in Existential Experience. In ChristianBorch (Ed.). Architectural Atmospheres on the experienceand politics of Architecture, Basel: Birkhäuser.

Praz, M. (2010). The House of Life (La Casa della Vita,1958), Boston: David R. Godine.

Sharr, A. (2006) Heidegger’s Hut, Cambridge (Mass): MITPress

Spier, S. (2001). Place, authorship and the concrete: threeconversations with Peter Zumthor, Arquitectural ResearchQuarterly, 5(1), 15–36.

Spiller N. and N. Clear (Eds) (2014). Educating Architects.How tomorrow’s parctioners will learn today, London:Thames & Hudson.

Tanizaki, J. (2006) Lob des Schattens (In’ei-raisan, 1933),Zürich: Manesse Verlag

Tyng, A. (1984) Beginnings. Louis I. Kahn’s Philosophy ofArchitecture, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Zumthor, P. (2006a). Atmospheres: architecturalenvironments, surrounding objects, Basel: Birckhauser.

Zumthor, P. (2006b). Thinking Architecture, Basel:Birkhäuser.


68

RESEARCH


Woolf. V. (1929, 1991) A Room of One’s own, New York:Harcourt Inc.

[email protected]


69

RESEARCH


Phenomenology for Introductory Architectural Analysis ...

Documents